Mindfulness has been newsworthy for several years. There are some 500 new mindfulness related papers published each year, representing a lot of work from research establishments around the world especially during the past 10 years. Amongst many significant recent achievements, the ‘Mindful Nation’ report was launched in Westminster to an audience of parliamentarians and guests in October 2015.

Contemporary interest in mindfulness is driven by a growing body of evidence that taught and practised properly and regularly, mindfulness is effective for maintaining mental health and emotional resilience. And set against greatly rising levels of mental illness, mindfulness is an effective way to restore well-being - especially reducing depressive relapse and anxiety.

The Handbook of Mindfulness is an important addition to the growing library of works devoted to contemporary mindfulness training (MT). The term ‘Handbook’ is something of a misnomer as this is a substantial collection of twenty three papers from a wide range of cognitive and clinical psychologists, educationalists and researchers.

The introduction states: "The common goal that Buddhism, medicine and psychology each have in reducing suffering has helped to pave the way for the entry of mindfulness and MT exercises into Western medicine and psychotherapeutic programs." (p63)

In the first section of the book Rupert Gethin examines the Buddhist concept of mindfulness - Sati. Sati is often found in conjunction with other factors or linked with ‘memory’– a connection that can seem puzzling since the contemporary practice of mindfulness does not include memory exercises and is commonly defined as ‘present moment non-judgemental awareness’. The puzzle can be resolved by regarding Sati as relying on working memory or recollection of immediate context, rather than the deliberate bringing forth of past memories. So mindfulness involves a clear recall or ‘keeping in mind’ of ‘what we are about’.

Even in bare awareness there is a need for memory as recollection - just the instruction that one is following, for example - 'for the next 20 minutes I am going to notice sensations of breathing'. This instruction – established in mind - is what sets the context for what we are practicing and such a specific intention is always there with mindfulness training, on a continuum from very minimalist to very elaborate. So mindfulness practice requires a recall of intention and there is not a 'deliberate bare attention' that does not include a recollection of intent (the intention to practice deliberate bare attention).

This is at the core of mindfulness training (MT) – establishing a clear intention - to be aware - in working memory and then noticing when our minds lose the connection with our intention, and re-establishing the intention repeatedly with a kind and patient attitude. What this training does is to free us from automatic immersion in mind-habits – in ‘auto-pilot’– so that we can rest in present moment awareness and make fresh and creative choices if needed.

Rupert Gethin describes innatist and constructivist ideas of awakening. Innatist refers to what can be revealed when our analytical mind quietens down; constructivist refers to the behavioural frameworks that we can be trained in and that are felt to be appropriate for an awakened person to exhibit and that can also help induce or maintain awakening.

The later understanding of mindfulness in China, Tibet and Burma is variously described as ‘maintaining or guarding consciousness’; ‘maintaining the mind’ and ‘maintaining …undiscriminating awareness of the absolute mind or Buddha Nature within oneself’. These move into Dzogchen (and Chan) practices where the mind is seen as naturally pure but overlaid by habitual and routine conceptualisation, and to the simple ‘noting’ practices of Mahasi that create space around what is perceived or felt and avoid cognitive elaboration of these sensory impressions.

In concluding, Rupert Gethin discusses three areas of tension; one in regard to memory – which the use of ‘working memory’ goes some way to resolve, secondly, in the relationship of mindfulness to conceptual thinking where it can sound – especially to those from a Zen or Dzogchen background - that a self-consciousness is being encouraged in mindfulness practice rather than a fully aware identity with what one is doing.

The third tension is that mindfulness is always regarded as exclusively wholesome in Theravāda whereas in Sarvāstivada and Yogācarā understanding, mindfulness can be a quality of the unwholesome mind.

Depending on how we understand mindfulness – in a minimalist way as little more than being fully with what one is doing – or as a constellation of factors including, presence, kindness, patience, curiosity – will depend on whether we consider the ‘mindful assassin’ to be a possibility or an oxymoron.

These tensions appear to be at least partly resolvable either through the illumination given by careful comparison of Buddhist terms with contemporary psychological models – as in the consideration of working memory above – or in realising that although the descriptions in different Buddhist traditions may appear to be in tension, the basic meditation practices are the same.

The remaining chapters of the book are grouped within 4 further sections – ‘mindfulness in contemporary psychological theory’, ‘the science of mindfulness’, ‘mindfulness interventions for healthy populations’ and’ mindfulness interventions for clinical populations’.

The overall quality of the contributions is very high. The authors have no qualms about quoting Pali and Sanskrit scriptures, in examining Buddhist descriptions of psychological functions and in exploring debates from Buddhist tradition. There is a sympathetic and respectful quality throughout to the extent that Buddhist teachings often provide a model for what is being investigated.

James Carmody in chapter 4 presents a reconceptualising of mindfulness that honours its Buddhist roots whilst presenting it within evolutionary theory, and linking to ‘the processes of attending and [other] familiar psychological principles’ (p74). We can see how scientific narratives are being used to give contemporary meaning to mindfulness practice – narratives that are not based upon Buddhist metaphysics, but upon knowledge gleaned over centuries of research in biology, psychology and neuroscience and which are increasingly regarded as more reliable and accessible than traditional religious sources. Why is ease not a default condition of the mind? (p66): Presumably because the highly sophisticated cognitive abilities of humans have evolved to aid survival and are triggered in micro-seconds when a threat is sensed. If most of us are conditioned to see the world as threatening to us, or believe that thinking is always appropriate as a way to relate to experience, then the ‘cognitive discriminatory complex’ (self-view) will often be on alert and hence will inhibit or overlay a natural sense of ease.

Section two, on mindfulness in the context of contemporary psychological theory, includes work that is both technical and challenging, but which illustrate the creative and rich research on mindfulness and attention that is being undertaken now in several universities and medical establishments. ‘Being Aware and Functioning Fully’ - includes descriptions of several contemporary frameworks that ‘embed MT within or alongside other values and characteristics deemed linked with human flourishing’. These resemble new versions – or reworked variants - of the four noble truths and noble eightfold path.

Is this a problem?

Given the propensity in the Pali Suttas for the Buddha and his disciples to creatively enumerate lists of useful factors that aid awakening, perhaps we can see this tendency within the mindfulness movement (to enumerate lists and frameworks) as following a Buddhist precedent.

Contemporary frameworks include Self Determination Therapy (SDT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT). These all aim ‘to encourage and train a greater psychological openness to unwanted thoughts, feelings, memories and sensations and of the present moment including physical surroundings, the perspectives of others, and enhanced clarity and drive towards valued end goals’.

ACT aims to improve psychological flexibility through a range of practices that ‘include mindfulness through acceptance of the given moment - embracing experience with openness, kindness and curiosity and in noticing how stories about self can alter our perspectives towards the contents of awareness’. Several of these qualities - openness, curiosity, and kindness occur repeatedly within the literature on MT and appear as important co-factors for the cultivation of mindfulness.

DBT is linked most closely with the Zen tradition, rather than the early Pali sources commonly used in MT, and appears to inherit the same tensions that exist between Zen and Theravāda views on mindfulness: ‘the practice of mindfulness in DBT subtly differs from that of other approaches…in that the ultimate goal is not to achieve an objective distance from one’s experience but rather to enter into, participate in, and become one with experience’ p.343

Is MT really trying to achieve ‘objective distance from one’s experience’? MT is intended to cultivate a lucid presence in which all sensory experience – including thoughts and emotions – are known in awareness in a fluid and flexible way – without ‘stickiness’. So there is a unity in awareness, but that awareness allows thoughts, perceptions, and sensory experience to coexist. Often, we get caught up in our thought stream to the exclusion of the other senses, but thought is not to be eradicated, and neither are we to automatically lose ourselves in activity – although through mindfulness practice we do develop the ability to let go of thought and be present both with quotidian duties and skilled physical activity such as dance or badminton.

‘The Science of Presence’ asks how mindfulness as a solitary practice can lead to interpersonal benefits? And the answer is that it improves 'presence' - a state of receptive spaciousness …”to whatever arises as it arises" p 226.

Presence may be the opposite of mind wandering - the unintentional process of the mind drifting away from the current task. “Presence facilitates attunement - rather than being preoccupied with habitual thoughts and rumination, we are open to the cascade effect of mirror neurons reflecting another’s emotional condition - perhaps happiness - your happiness is in my body”. p 235.

I wonder whether greater use of the word ‘presence’ in MT might be helpful, partly to qualify what is meant by mindfulness, but also as a pointer to the quality of mind (and heart) being cultivated. Richard Ryan and C. Rigby discuss ‘Did the Buddha have a self’ in chapter 14. An example of the way that traditional scriptural descriptions and current Buddhist practices are compared and understood from a Western scientific and philosophical perspective. These are researchers who are very comfortable in exploring Buddhist psychology – both Theravāda and Mahāyāna – and in drawing parallels with contemporary Western ideological frameworks. They explore both various Buddhist concepts of self, no[t]-self and non-dual awareness, and Western conceptions from Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and other Western phenomenologists. The fourth section - on mindfulness interventions for healthy populations – explores MT for healthy adults, for children and adolescents, and MT to improve positive functioning. As Kirk Brown states: ‘The Buddha’s teaching did not stop with suffering reduction; it also emphasised …other forms of contemplative training for the development of wisdom, compassion …carrying both personal and interpersonal benefits’.

This is the area of "positive psychology" and is another current spin off from Buddhism and MT. Present moment awareness adds clarity and vividness to experience and opens us to the pleasure inherent in such quotidian activities as eating, walking to the shops, showering, and washing dishes - taking pleasure in simple things.

The final section on mindfulness interventions for clinical populations provides a growing body of evidence showing that MBI are moderately effective at reducing depressive relapse and for helping with a range of other mental health problems. I was particularly interested in a discussion of the way that mindfulness based interventions for over-controlled individuals ‘emphasising equanimity, the importance of appearing calm, composed or in control’ may actually increase these individual’s psychological problems.

Are (Buddhist) retreats that emphasise (or can be seen by participants as emphasising) equanimity, detachment and calm, playing into the very psychological difficulties that some people have? And perhaps Buddhism is particularly attractive to over-controlled individuals? Such individuals really need to train to loosen up; to have fun, to let go of trying to be perfect.

This type of research will have a growing impact on Western Buddhism. The fortunes of traditional Buddhism and the mindfulness movement are increasingly intertwined. Not only are studies suggesting that mindfulness meditation (whether secular or traditional) may not be helpful for some people, but many of the other research areas – on the qualities and training of mindfulness teachers, and on just what is meant by such subtle factors as mindfulness, awareness, attention, presence and concentration, may well change the playing field for traditional Buddhism. For example, how do we know that Buddhist teachers are suitably trained and qualified? And how do we know that ‘Buddhist’ meditation practice and retreats are not damaging some individuals?

Those who try to position the mindfulness movement as just a therapeutic movement distinct from ‘traditional’ Buddhism are misinterpreting what has happened. The mindfulness movement includes many who clearly see it as a much broader movement benefitting many: the young and old, healthy and sick, religious and non-religious. MT is being widely deployed to healthy populations in schools, for example.

What is being presented within this Handbook under the general title of ‘Mindfulness’ looks increasingly like a reworking of the heart of the Buddha Dhamma into an accessible, pragmatic, and evidence based new Westernised form. Personally, I do not find this threatening; it shows that Buddhist teachings are taken seriously by a core Western ideology – science – and bears comparison with the ways that Buddhist ideas have previously combined with historically dominant ideologies in China, Tibet, Japan and other Asian nations to generate new naturalised Buddhist forms.

04 May 2016

I wanted to write a few comments on the issue of mindfulness and sila (virtue). This is not an exhaustive or academic analysis but comes from my experience in teaching 8 week Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) courses over several years. I have a long background in Buddhist practice and in supporting and teaching at Amaravati Buddhist Monastery. So I have taught both traditional Buddhist retreats as well as secular MBSR.

Moving from teaching traditional Buddhism to MBSR was unsettling. After many years of teaching traditional Buddhist meditation, I had unconsciously developed a position that I only became fully (and uncomfortably) aware of when teaching secular groups. As a Buddhist teacher my role is considerably bolstered by sitting in front of the shrine and a large golden statue of the Buddha. I am regarded by many of those present as a priestly figure, or a quasi-monk and this conditions a level of reverence and respect that makes teaching formal and easier. This is not the case with secular mindfulness groups where there are no religious trappings to inflate one's status and respect develops over time.

Whilst finding the continuing discussion between academics, mindfulness teachers and traditional Buddhists very interesting in identifying different views of mindfulness in both the traditional and secular ‘camps’; much of the discussion appears abstract and ignores the reality of why people voluntarily attend MBSR courses. I will write about the specific area of corporate mindfulness training later, but will start with my experience of offering MBSR courses to members of the public.

I should add that coming from a traditional Buddhist background; I deliberately included a session on sila in my MBSR courses – where we explored the five precepts plus generosity, kindness and patience. Like others from a traditional Buddhist background I initially felt that the omission of sila from mindfulness training was something to be remedied.

My experience, however, was that specific teaching on the five precepts was usually either irrelevant or presumptuous. Most of those attending my courses were only too well aware of moral injunctions and the ideals they should live up to but were experiencing stress (dukkha) from a whole range of challenging life events.

For many, their suffering was linked with misfortune. Many people are blameless victims of trauma. Such as being an abandoned mother or the victim of a road accident, being overworked, suffering from insomnia, depression or anxiety, or chronic illness of various kinds, or having to hold down a difficult job in order to pay the bills, or witnessing the sickness and death from bone cancer of one’s husband after a year of marriage (an experience of one of my students).

In my experience, those attending MBSR courses are not suffering because of immorality and are well aware of normal moral standards of behaviour.

In no case did I knowingly teach any people who were suffering from the results of their activities as career criminals, illicit drug manufacturers, torturers, rapists, burglars or snipers. Such people must exist, but they don’t voluntarily attend MBSR courses in Hertfordshire.

The reality is both more mundane and more concerning since it points to a large number of decent people who struggle with daily life challenges and trauma, and are stressed and unhappy as a result.

To suggest to people – such as stressed teachers, mothers or nurses or those suffering post-traumatic stress (PTSD), or from chronic pain, or from bereavement - that they would do well to consider their moral behaviour and imply that this may be connected to their present suffering is both unhelpful and patronising.

However, teaching them to cultivate mindful presence and to open to their feelings, memories and sensory experience and to cultivate spacious present moment awareness is usually extremely helpful. To realise that the vivid reliving of the moment an accident took place can be faced and not necessarily be psychologically crippling, or that anxiety is an impersonal feeling that can be tolerated and opened to, or that repetitive thoughts are just mind events arising and passing, or that painful sensations change and that we do not have to add extra anguish to unwanted feelings, was and is, an enormous relief for those suffering from these difficulties.

I am not suggesting that carefully considering our behaviour and its results is not an essential component of a fulfilling life or that our activities are not intimately linked with some of the mental events we subsequently have to experience, just that in my particular context of mainly UK educated participants, the dukkha experienced by participants was not caused in most cases by their ethical transgressions. The possible exceptions were a few course participants who had a problem with alcohol – but that arguably is a health problem – an addiction - that easily leads to subsequent moral problems.

I think it is easy to become self-righteous and dogmatic about virtue and there is a risk of giving the impression that cultivating impeccable moral behaviour automatically leads to a stress (dukkha free) life and even more perniciously, that immoral behaviour from the past (perhaps a past life) is the direct cause of current misfortune (like a severe car accident caused by another driver). The underlying message here is that victims are to blame for their own misfortune.

In some Buddhist contexts these types of misfortune may be regarded as kammic justice for past misdeeds. This is a superstitious misinterpretation of early Buddhist scriptures. There are a number of teachings in the Pali Canon where it is made clear that the workings of kamma are complex and that not all that we experience is caused by our particular intentional actions.

I find it most useful to regard virtue as a practical training that we work with over a lifetime and that helps establish wholesome mental qualities that enable us to relax into mindful presence and ultimately nibbana. But even impeccable virtue on its own does not guarantee much – we could still be a dogmatic deluded sanctimonious prig who experiences a lot of dukkha.

I think we also need to take a good hard look at the five precepts – the basic Buddhist moral guidelines for lay people – and see what they offer at this time and place. There can be few brought up in the UK and who take on board our cultural values who would not find the five Buddhist precepts to be simple common-sense. In this country at this time and to most citizens they are unremarkable. In fact many idealistic Westerners would find them too limited and want something more inspiring and with a more demonstrable positive impact on society. But there are places in the world and some cultural and religious groups that do need to cultivate basic sila – the five precepts - especially not harming others, but also the other basic precepts. It seems incredible to me that some religious teachers seem to think it acceptable to condemn, and to praise the murder of, individuals and groups on the basis of their race or religion.

But the idea that most ordinary people in the UK – especially those with families and jobs - are habitually immoral and regularly break the five precepts in serious ways is in my experience, nonsense. In fact those leading family lives have to be decent, hardworking, and trustworthy if they are to establish a good reputation to make a living and they often have to deal with hugely difficult daily challenges in juggling care of children and the elderly and in holding down a job to pay for food and accommodation and all the other responsibilities they have.

And those of us who live engaged lives with work, relationships and families have to constantly work with the principles inherent in the five precepts and the complexities of the real world. The situations we face in an engaged life are often highly complex and actions that we take may cause harm to some and reduce harm to others. The world of decision taking is about dealing in the wisest and most compassionate way - with good intentions- with many shades of grey, not black and white. Perfection is usually hard to achieve in the world and working with difficult challenges can lead to a much more developed ethical sense.

However, there are other ways that we can identify a moral aspect to Mindfulness Based Interventions (MBI). For example, what are the aims of the MBI – is it aiming to cultivate mindfulness for a purpose that is unethical; and what choice do participants have in participating with mindfulness training? Another key consideration is the embodied moral stance of the mindfulness teacher.

I think it is very important not only that mindfulness teachers have a good and regular pattern of contemplative experience, but that they are teaching from a place of compassion and integrity. Even without any specific instruction on sila in a course, the teachers embodied qualities of kindness, care and integrity will communicate to participants and be linked with the attitudes needed to cultivate mindfulness. In order to rest in mindfulness we have to develop a caring, opening, accepting, patient witnessing of facets of our human nature that are normal and widespread but may be unwanted and difficult for us to witness.

The Mindfulness that I teach ( and is the basis of MBI and the 'gold standard' of MBCT / MBSR) is sati-sampajana - mindfulness and clear knowing - noticing sensory experience from the six senses – including the mind sense – thoughts and feelings. I do not teach much bare attention through the five senses – but include such exercises as part of a complete mindfulness teaching. Perhaps it is this type of bare attention that more easily leads to abuse – especially in training of repetitive movements or activities with what we could call ‘mindlessness’ – where there is no presence of mind but only a direct concentration - unity - with a learnt activity, perhaps activity such as striking off an enemies head with a sword, or the hackneyed example of the sniper. Unfortunately this kind of ‘mindless’ behaviour has appeared within Buddhism – where warriors have been taught to see their enemies as empty and encouraged to act without thought to destroy them. (see the book 'Zen and War' for a broader examination of the appropriation of Buddhist for nationalistic purposes )

Sati-sampajana cultivates a presence of mind where one is aware of context – time and place and the ethical qualities of action and where one becomes mindful of habits – learnt behaviours that are automatic and mindless – and which are not necessarily beneficial, giving one a chance to change these behaviour patterns.

The fundamental aim of mindfulness cultivation – of MBI - must be to live more fully in our current context in ways that reduce suffering both to ourselves and those around us. Just as with physical exercise, mindfulness practice is most beneficial with regular and diligent practise. These are attitudes that come much more easily from within – from self-motivation rather than being imposed by some authority – certainly self-motivation is very helpful if we want to establish long-term mindfulness practice.

And this sheds some light on concerns about workplace mindfulness courses and on courses for captive participants – for example students and prisoners. I think we could say that workplace courses are to be encouraged provided they are offered by professional and experienced teachers and aim to promote sati-sampajana via good MBSR / MBCT courses and that those participants are motivated volunteers.

Teaching mindfulness to a captive audience in prisons could be of great benefit and prisons are a context where examination of sila becomes more central. But it is still important that participants volunteer to take part, even if their motives are not pure. For example prisoners may see participation on a mindfulness course as helping them with early release.

Students are also a captive audience, but it seems thoroughly sensible to teach young people, especially those in secondary education, ways to be able to step away and rest from relentless automatic entanglement with thinking, emotions, and the conditions they experience in awareness.

01 May 2016

One of the most difficult obstacles for those new to mindfulness meditation is to learn to relax the thinking muscle. By the time most of us come to a meditation class we are expert thinkers -especially those who are well educated. Our thinking is elaborate, central to awareness and often automatic. The very idea that we can relax thinking and cultivate a spacious form of awareness that includes thoughts and perceptions but is not strongly entangled with them sounds not only strange but impossible for many of us. When we sit quietly and try to watch the sensations of breathing, our habitual thought patterns keep butting in. And our response to these thoughts is to try to think our way to not-thinking.

As a meditation teacher it is very difficult to define the spacious awareness that we are cultivating in words that do not trigger the very thinking and critical thought patterns that we are trying to relax. So when Jon kabat zinn describes mindfulness as a ‘non-judgemental present moment awareness’ he is not presenting a belief - that we should all cease to exercise any moral or other form of judgement in our lives, but that we should learn to be aware of mind contents without compulsive attachment to them - and this compulsive attachment often shows as either trying to get rid of them or trying to hold onto them, or trying to think our way to solve all of our problems.

So when we are practicing mindfulness and reliving an event from earlier in the day, for example, when we were verbally abused and maybe have residual feelings of anger, we are not suggesting that one ignores the memory of the event and the associated emotion, or represses it, or believe that we have to be non-judgemental about what we recall as taking place, but that one cultivates the ability to notice these mental events in a spacious, compassionate and mindful way. This is awareness that does not assume that mental events are personal, can ever be entirely satisfactory or won’t change, or that we should have any particular response to them, but that can see these events clearly. This is the clear knowing in mindfulness practice that allows one to judge a good and creative response: A response that is appropriate to the context, minimises harm and maximises benefit.

Unfortunately, whatever description one uses to describe the characteristics of mindful spaciousness - the clear knowing that we are cultivating - it always raises the possibility of misunderstanding because we are using language and language can trigger critical thinking reactions according to our particular conditioning and prejudices. So using terms like 'non judgemental', 'unattached', 'detached', or ‘disentangled’ can easily be turned into metaphysical beliefs that we try to follow or reject rather than as words used to point to the subjective feeling of spacious clear knowing.

Here is Ajahn Chah’s description of the mindful awareness we are cultivating:

‘It means making the mind bright and clear so that wisdom arises, so that there is knowledge of whatever is happening in all postures and situations. Whatever the posture, you know phenomena and states of mind for what they are, meaning that they are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not your self. The mind remains established in this awareness at all times and in all postures. When the mind feels attraction, when it feels aversion, you don’t lose the path, but you know these conditions for what they are. Your awareness is steady and continuous, and you are letting go steadily and continuously. You are not fooled by good conditions. You aren’t fooled by bad conditions. You remain on the straight path. This can be called “making the postures even.” It refers to the internal, not the external; it is talking about mind.’

29 April 2016

I would like to think that organisations such as the Buddhist Society would exercise considerable care in what they publish. Many would regard them as an important part of the U.K. Buddhist establishment - they are certainly an organisation with a long involvement in Buddhism - so I think that Buddhist Society members expect them to publish a variety of thoughtful and well-informed opinions that promote good practice rather than what looks like casual prejudice.

So what are we to make of the editorial in the February edition of the Middle Way journal? An editorial that starts by worrying about the suffering caused by organised religion, and then includes this sentence:

"Filling the void created by the loss of trust in religion has come a host of other ways to fill the 'spiritual' gap: ideologies of all kinds masquerading as various religions, the leisure industry with its vast resources which mindfulness and yoga form a part, sport and travel as well as naked and rampant materialism of all kinds."

So mindfulness and yoga are casually dismissed as part of the leisure industry (and part of sport and travel?). This is more than a little surprising. I suggest the writer of the editorial looks up the entries on Yoga and Mindfulness in Wikipedia as a good starting place for basic information.

From the wiki entry we read that the origins of yoga may date back to pre-Vedic Indian traditions, probably developed around the fifth century BCE in ancient India's ascetic and sramana movements. Western exposure to Yoga was promoted by Swami Vivikananda's talks in the late 1890's in the US. Since then - around 125 years - Yoga has established a number of popular forms widely practiced across the globe. Many who practice Buddhism find Yoga to be a useful complementary discipline encouraging an awareness of the body, calming the mind and improving flexibility and health.

Many of my fellow Buddhist practitioners started practising yoga before finding their way to Buddhism. And many Buddhist monks, nuns and clerics find yoga a very helpful part of their daily routine. Those who practice yoga can relate to it both as a secular form, or as a religious discipline.

Secular mindfulness - which I presume is what is being dismissed as part of the leisure industry in the editorial - has been extensively developed and applied for about 40 years. It is based on the Satipatthana Sutta from the Buddhist Pali Canon and includes practical training in mindfulness (sati - sampajana/panna) meditation of the breath, body, feelings, sensory awareness and metta bhavana (cultivation of friendliness or loving kindness). There is considerable evidence that secular mindfulness training is a helpful therapy for a range of problems - including depression and anxiety, chronic pain, and other psychological and physical pathologies that cause deep suffering to many.

Arising as it does from Buddhist roots, secular mindfulness - properly taught and practised - is not only beneficial in its own right, but lays the foundations for a fuller engagement with Buddhism.

15 November 2013

Do you believe that nibbāna is a vanishingly rare (and possibly supernatural ) event that leads to the permanant absence of all suffering, and means that we never again have to experience emotions and thoughts that we don't like? And which may grant special psychic powers and abilities, and post-nibbāna, that we are enlightened beings and unable to behave badly? Do you also share in the taboo about discussing meditation experiences such as nibbāna?

Then you are not alone. These are common Buddhist beliefs.

Alternatively, however, we could consider nibbāna to be a natural feature of our neurophysiology and although not common, not especially rare either. In this naturalistic worldview, given the right conditions, nibbāna will be experienced; and sometimes the right conditions might be the unexpected outcome of pathology.

If you have not yet seen Jill Bolte-Taylor on TED, then please have a look. Jill's book about her experience is also fascinating as she describes how a stroke precipitated her into an experience of nibbāna (nirvana in sanskrit). Jill does not quite make the claim that she experienced nibbāna, but her description sounds right. (And see here).

What Jill's example shows is that this experience is built into our neurophysiology; it is a natural, if unusual, experience that can spontaneously appear when normal mind chatter ceases.

Jill Bolte-Taylor suffered a stroke in her left hemisphere - where language and thinking are usually performed. Normal discriminatory thinking in the left hemisphere inhibits the right hemisphere - the so called 'silent hemisphere' - where strategic assesment, holistic and pattern recognition are normally located.

Perhaps some of the profound experiences described as near death experiences (NDE's) are also induced experiences of nibbāna. Oxygen depletion disrupts the normal functioning of the brain and may shut down the sense of self partially or completely for a brief period allowing nibbāna to manifest.

Nibbāna is not simply equivalant to enlightenment. Enlightenment is a construct used to position and interpret the nibbāna experience. Depending on the particular form of Buddhism one uses, it will have its own enlightenment schema. In early Buddhism nibbāna is regarded as an experience of stream entry which can then be followed by three other levels of attainment, the highest of which is arahantship or full enlightenment. In Zen Buddhism, sartori probablyequates tonibbāna . InMahāyānatraditions there are different levels of enlightenment of which nibbāna is one.

Although the profound letting go of self that occurs in nibbāna does automatically generate great ease and pleasure and enables one to appreciate how suffering is caused and to feel deep compassion for all of us struggling in self-based thinking, the experience itself does not guarantee that one will behave well or that one is constrained in how one acts.

Existing habits will be weakened because the self is no longer centre stage, but will still exist. We will no longer feel entirely at home with previous habits and behaviours and be able to see them from a clear perspective. But nibbāna does not erase the momentum from previously learned behaviours.

This is why character training is always required. None of us can avoid careful reflection on the quality of our behaviour. If we have already developed compassionate and virtuous behavior patterns prior to nibbāna, and this may well be the case especially in a Western cultural context,then we can make good progress to enlightenment - at least as defined according to the early Buddhist Pali schema.

Nibbāna (or enlightenment)does not mean that one no longer has to operate in the world and deal with the same kinds of problems as everyone else. Or that one automatically has magical powers. It simply means that the suffering and delusion linked with believing in thought, its constructs and the self no longer occurs leaving one free to choose the best (for all) actions (most of the time).

That nibbāna does not grant omniscience is clear even in the Pali Canon - the earliest Buddhist scriptures - where the Buddha makes mistakes (such as gving a teaching that leads several monks to commit suicide). And of course the Buddha is regarded as a special being who has not only experienced nibbāna but is fully trained in virtue and concentration and perfected according to the Pali schema.

Enlightenment schemas vary. Pali and Theravada schemas are based on stepping away from an engaged life in the world and becoming a renunciant bhikkhu. There is a text that suggests that if a lay-person becomes fully enlightened then they must become a monk or die. But this is rather circuitous (and self-serving) reasoning since Pali enlightenment is defined so that it cannot really be achieved unless one is a bhikkhu (or bhikkhuni)

However, there is no natural (or supernatural) imperative that forces someone who has experienced nibbāna to disengage from an active life with family and work. In fact this is what informs the mahāyāna enlightenment schemas that encourage the bodhisattva path - an engaged path for the benefit of all sentient beings.

If we now see nibbāna as a natural and powerful potential of our neurophysiology that allows us to see beyond 'self' and that can be given meaning in different ways - in different schemas - and embedded in different cultural contexts, then we are free to create our own meaning and life path in our contemporary context that is altruistic, engaged and fully at home with the scientific worldview and evolutionary perspective.

And maybe if we move away from a religious view of nibbāna to a secular view, we can speak about it, study it, and cease to treat those who say they experience it as either saints to be worshipped or imposters to be dismissed. They might just be telling us in an objective way what they have experienced.

04 November 2013

Buddhism is changing in the West. I agree with Jay Michaelson in his book 'Evolving Dharma' that we are on the cusp of a major shift in how we view Buddhism and 'contemplative fitness'. In fact I would go further and say we are over the cusp. It has happened. We are in new territory. Secular Buddhist inspired practices are now mainstream.

I started this post because I wanted to explore 'Secular Buddhism' but found that as I wrote it, my position shifted. Rather like the images that flip between two possibilities:

Instead of seeing Buddhism shifting, distorting or getting watered down into something called 'Secular Buddhism' I flipped into the position of seeing Buddhism from a secular viewpoint - where the path of Buddhist practice is seen within a contemporary framework as a natural process of awakening embedded in a context of 'contemplative fitness', physical movement, mindfulness, engaged ethical action, critical thinking and an empirical and sceptical attitude.

The word ‘secular’ has become very widely used and often pejorative. There are regular warnings from a range of senior religious figures and politicians about ‘aggressive’ or ‘militant’ secularism, and how it is destroying faith and the moral backbone of Europe.

So what does secularism mean and why the fuss?

Wikipedia has this definition:

"The term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851. Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief... Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

The final sentence of this quote already has a resonance with the Buddhist emphasis on direct experience and testing what is of value for oneself in this life - our present experience and life context - rather than blindly following scripture, conventions and what others say – an enquiring, empirical and sceptical attitude found in the Kalama Sutta – a well-known and widely quoted early Buddhist scripture.

Secularism in its popular form has developed a political position which argues that the state should be neutral towards faiths and not privilege any faith above others or over non-religious movements. The opposite of political secularism would be a theocracy – a government run by religious authorities such as that found in Iran and a few other countries.

Most reasonable people, whether of faith or not, want government to be secular – they would not welcome a theocracy and want to limit the power of any one faith over the state. However, some religious figures and some politicians do want to maintain or increase the influence and power of religion (invariably their own). We should not be surprised at this – whatever else they offer, religious institutions offer livelihood and prestige – and livelihood and prestige are things that people fight for. And, of course, there are historical complexities that lead a faith to assume a more dominant role in some countries such as the UK.

Some of the complaints about ‘militant secularism’ arise from religious institutions feeling threatened by legislation that appears to reduce their privileges or makes it illegal to operate policy that discriminates against various groups in society – such as homosexuals and women. But it is also true that in contemporary democracies such as the US and Europe, a growing number of citizens are disenchanted with conventional organised religions and 'religiosity'.

Religiosity is increasingly criticised as being associated with superstition, abuses of power, oppressive and hypocritical behaviour, and highly conservative attitudes. And in return, some religious adherents are labelling criticism of religious privilege and behaviour as 'militant secularism' and attempting to gain special exemptions for the 'religious conscience'.

Buddhism is not immune from anti-religious sentiment, (for example, recent publicity given to violent sectarianism in Burma and other parts of Asia).

Some of these concerns and cultural attitudes have contributed to Secular Buddhism - an evolving effort to outline and practise a non-denominational contemporary path that restructures traditional Buddhist frameworks into a Westernised vernacular. This secularising process started around a century ago when Buddhism was already being characterised as a rational and scientific philosophy, rather than a religion requiring belief.

Secular Buddhism is evolving and may simply stay as a general term to label the range of modern forms that Buddhist practice is taking. However, some might see it as moving towards a new orthodoxy and eventually defining a distinct contemporary Buddhist form alongside traditional forms.

Some of the ingredients in the Secular Buddhism mix are:

- A sceptical, humanistic, naturalistic and evidence based approach emphasising personal experience and responsibility rather than unquestioned beliefs and supernaturalism

- A discomfort with traditional religiosity with its emphasis on exclusive faith identity, unaccountable (and usually male) clerical power hierarchies, and pre-modern attitudes to gender, sexuality and the material sciences

- A discomfort with the Buddhist 'guru' model or any teaching model that elevates some supposedly 'enlightened' individuals and cloaks them with a magical aura that renders them beyond criticism. This encourages power abuses that corrupt both the teacher and the student.

- A focus in and of this world, i.e. secular, as in'these times; in this particular context' that treats Western and modern culture as embodying many valuable aspects and insights including those arising from science, evolution, philosophy, psychology, democracy, liberal values, the arts, and its own religious traditions, and seeks to relate, reconcile and integrate these where there is synergy, with a balanced contemplative practice and engaged lifestyle

- A tendency to place a high value on early Buddhist teachings in the Pali Canon. These focus on the path to awakening (including mindfulness) and are presented in psychological and sceptical terms more in keeping with modern attitudes. They also present the historical Buddha in human terms rather than as the god-like being that is described in later Mahayana texts.

- A wish to emphasise the universality of the truths Buddhism (and other contemplative traditions) point to; truths that are potentially available to all who follow certain meditative, ethical and behavioural disciplines.

- Sympathy with secular mindfulness and related training and practice systems that aim to avoid stress, awaken participants to lead a good engaged life, and that provide evidence to support their efficacy.

- A comfort with multi-lineage or eclectic attitudes to practice

- Secular Buddhism also reflects growing confidence in a contemporary Westernised contemplative practice rooted in a human potential for awakening and for which Buddhism provides a highly valued framework.

As mentioned at the start of this post, the truth is that a popular movement for contemplative and awakening practices is already well-embedded in the West. It exists in a constellation of practices such as Yoga, Chi Gong, Tai Chi, meditation, mindfulness, forms of psychotherapy, insight and vipassana, acceptance and commitment therapy, mystical and reflective practices from other faiths, insight dialogue, and a host of related disciplines, courses, qualifications and teachings. These are increasingly being offered in an entirely secular context and validated by scientific evidence.

The rapidly evolving and increasingly complex array of approaches makes it hard to see whether Secular Buddhism might lead to a new Buddhist form, or whether it will remain as an umbrella term for contemporary Buddhist related practices. I suspect the latter. The age of distinct and relatively stable religious forms is fast declining and we are headed down the road to a deconstructed secular 'contemplative fitness' culture.

Even in a traditional Buddhist context, secularised practices are being widely offered and promoted by Buddhist institutions from Tibetan, Theravada, Zen and related backgrounds. Just have a look at what is being offered now at your local Buddhist temple, monastery, vihara or retreat centre...and their growing websites and digital media offerings.

For many traditional Buddhist lineages this has probably become a matter of survival: those who embrace secular attitudes and practices - mindfulness, yoga and related contemplative offerings and the internet - are likely to flourish; those who stick to a conservative and/or dogmatic religious orthodoxy will probably serve a dwindling minority.